Discussion in 'Games' started by Mindweaver, Jan 28, 2014.
This was posted as a leaked Source2 screen shot of L4D3. Source
Looks pretty average if you enlarge and check the detail levels on those trees. I expected a little more eye candy.
I think that just depends on how much time the artists spend on the detail of the textures and geometry (the vines on the building look fine on the other hand). What I mostly see is an impressive rendering of light/shadows.
I'm gonna call BS on this.
1. Gabe said there is no Source 2 in the works and the current engine has many years left in it. As a matter of fact Titanfall is running Source.
2. Why would you redo an level of a 3 year old game to show off a new engine?
I could be wrong but it just doesn't add up........honestly I HOPE I'm wrong!
Yea, look at the growth on the building. It looks really good. I don't think the tree is the spot light in that scene.
As much as I hate to agree with @TheMailMan78 I'm on his side. Seems pointless making a copy of a scene instead of just making a whole new scene. Not to mention the compatibility mode in PowerPoint
and my balloon just popped.. lol Thanks guys.. hehehe It's crazy but I'm more excited about L4D3 than the Source 2 engine.
I was more excited during the helms deep mod than I was about the entire campaign. It just fulfilled my requirements of mindless fun for killing a few hours
There is a helms deep mod? I must have this mod! hehehe
Any word on L4D3?
Valve has always been average. Anything new from Valve shouldn't be expected to be any more than average.
It could be a slide show for marketing the latest source engine. The last slide confirms this: "Redesigned Tools & Workflow." The question is if Valve produced the PowerPoint presentation or if someone else did as a ruse.
Source is undeniably long in the tooth and does need an update, especially if Valve expects to be competitive on the Xbox One and PS4. I put it at 50/50 that it's real.
Naw, just in the source I linked to in the OP. It said this map was from L4D2, and is a remake for L4D3.
Wrong. Valve is just like Blizzard. They sell to the masses not the select few enthusiasts.
And how is that not average? Minecraft graphics are shit but it undeniably appeals "to the masses." In fact, Minecraft has outsold the best selling Valve title, Half-Life. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with average. I'm saying that if it looked like Crysis 3, I'd be sure it was a fake because Valve doesn't put that much effort into making games look pretty.
I guess you don't remember the Half Life 2 tech demos. They came out at the golden age of Quake 3 and they were FAR from average at the time. Half Life 2's graphics were ground breaking at the time.
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory released at about the same time on Unreal Engine 2.5. Unreal Engine beat the shit out of Source then and it still does today...
L4D team is working on another shooter, not L4D3.
The slides don't suggest L4D3, just renders showing the higher level of detail of L4D2 maps in Source 2.0 likely using DirectX 11 shaders.
They updated the levels in Counterstrike for Source, and again in CS:GO. I could see them using this as a trial run to test out the new toolset and familiarize themselves with the new engine.
Unreal 2.5 didn't even come close to the tech demos back in 2000. What were you like 10 years old?
I thought "Source 2.0" came out like 4 years ago, with DX11.
And source 1.0 was DX10?
Maybe I'm just crazy... Nah, HL: Episode2 added new lighting 7 years ago, and was called "Source 2.0".
Obviously, since Episode2...Source 2.0...
I think they mean a whole new engine from the ground up. However you are correct. Its just semantics..........I guess. lol
1) Half-Life 2 debuted Nov 2004. Half-Life 2: Lost Coast debuted Oct 2005. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory debuted Mar 2005. 2000 is irrelevant to this discussion.
2) Tech demos have little to do with games actually released. The picture I posted is of gameplay.
3) In 1999, the original Unreal engine slaughtered IDTech engine which GoldSource was based on. ID has never been able to catch up to Epic since.
Edit: Newell confirmed Source 2.0 was in development in 2012.
Given that any Valve release is going to support every platform known to man, a new "from the ground, up" engine doesn't make any sense, at all.
Where are the new VGAs to make use of this new engine? New DirectX? New OS API for graphics?
Or are we talking about a Mantle/CUDA add-on?
Do you get where I'm headed here? DO you see the FUD?
Newell said they were working on engine stuff, not Source 2.0. Slightly different, and was the writers interpretation. I do see how it could be taken that way, however.
Also, Chaos Theory had great graphics, etc, it had horrible performance compared to HL2.
Separate names with a comma.